2016 Chevrolet Volt Real World Highway Range And MPG Test – Video

1 year ago by Jay Cole 172


The 2016 Chevrolet Volt is rated as having 53 miles of all-electric range; thereafter the EPA says it achieves an approximate 42 miles per gallon (combined) on regular gas.

How Many Electric Miles Is The 2016 Chevrolet Volt Good For @ 75 mph?

How Many Electric Miles Is The 2016 Chevrolet Volt Good For @ 75 mph?

Now the fellows at TFL have decided to check out what that means in the “real world” on the highway.

Specifically this means driving on their standard test/100 mile highway driving loop, while travelling at 75mph.  (We should note that a full 75 mph test run is more aggressive than standard EPA testing protocols)

Bold predictions before taking off?  The 2016 Volt will post a big number … perhaps the biggest number tested to date by the outfit.

Editor’s Note:  The testing duo continually mention that neither GM, nor the EPA has disclosed the range ratings for the 2016 Volt on the highway in all electric mode, or the MPGe/MPG of the car in extended range (gas) mode on the highway.

We took a moment to check the data files ourselves, and those numbers are available…but just not out in the open:

2016 Chevrolet Volt Range - From Left To Right: City, Highway, Combined

2016 Chevrolet Volt Electric Range – From Left To Right: City, Highway, Combined

2016 Chevrolet Volt MPG - From Left To Right: City, Highway, Combined

2016 Chevrolet Volt Petrol MPG – From Left To Right: City, Highway, Combined

2016 Volt MPGe: From Left To Right: City, Highway, Combined

2016 Volt Blended MPGe (bottom row): From Left To Right: City, Highway, Combined

Hat tip to offib!

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

172 responses to "2016 Chevrolet Volt Real World Highway Range And MPG Test – Video"

  1. David Murray says:

    It is surprising they only got around 35 miles of driving on battery power. They said it was very cold outside and I bet they were running the heater too. So I guess that is what you get when it is cold and driving 75 mph with the heat on.

    1. larry4pyrto says:

      I was also wondering about the short range. I believe they started northeast of Denver and headed east on I76. The Interstate in this direction has a gradual decline so they should have been able to be very close to the stated range of 53 miles, even at 75 MPG. Wonder what ate the range?

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        Electric heater!

        There is no way that they aren’t running heat when it is 37 degree outside. Certainly not from the way they dressed.

        Now, 35 miles EV range mean about 30 minutes of hwy driving. Volt is capable of 6kW of heat. That can easily eat up the 2-3 kWh of energy (~8-12 miles). Plus the speed at 75mph would eat up the rest of the range.

    2. Jeff N says:

      I think they said it was 37F so I assume they were running the electric heater.

      They said they got 35 miles of EV range but still had 3 estimated miles remaining. The driver display on the video shows 37.3 miles of EV range when the gas engine kicked in. The gas pump shows 1.436 gallons used. Overall, they reported “68 mpg” over 98 miles at 75 mph. That is consistent with getting 42 mpg gas-only after the engine started up.

      Overall, those are reasonable numbers for 37F winter driving in my opinion.

      1. ggpa says:

        “42 mpg” … excellent mileage when travelling at 75 mph

      2. Bone says:

        +1

        Considering the range drop you get with gen 1 in cold temperature and comfortable cabin temperature, this result is quite expected.

        The electric range of my 2012 Ampera is way below 30 miles with similar speed and temperature.

        1. Sting777 says:

          This is Chevy’s Engineering Marvel.
          I’d buy it tomorrow.
          But, one problem, my kids are tall.
          Need more rear seat headroom.

          Please build a wagon version with more headroom.

  2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Glad to see a report on the Volt (or any PHEV) which properly cites separate numbers for EV range and for MPG, the latter of which means using gas and only gas to power the car.

    Now, if we could just get y’all to ignore the meaningless and useless “blended” data, which is not useful in any real-world comparison…

    1. an_outsider says:

      Le / 100 km or MPGe is a non-sense imho.

      kWh / 100 km or mi / kWh makes sense in EV mode
      L / 100 km or MPG makes sense once battery depleted

    2. sven says:

      The EPA should report MPG/MPGe figures for various steady-rate highway speeds, like Wayne Gerdes from CleanMPG.com reported for the 2016 Prius Eco (steady rate, no hyper-miling). The Prius Eco is rated 53 mpg highway by the EPA, and Wayne reported the following mpg figures for various steady-rate speeds with the crossover for the EPA highway rating (53 mpg) occurring at 67.7 mph:

      50 mph – 78.4 mpg
      55 mph – 72.1 mpg
      60 mph – 64.0 mpg
      65 mph – 56.3 mpg
      70 mph – 50.2 mpg

      http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/index.php?media/29186/full&d=1447849618

      The info on ambient temperature, wind speed, and odometer/speedometer adjustments can be found at the link below.

      http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/index.php?media/29186/

      1. ggpa says:

        I assume you meant MPG only. Like the sample. Because MPGe is a joke, IMHO.

        From time to time we play games with our kids that start with “Imagine you could travel back in time …”. These games are a lot of fun, but not real.

        I feel the same way about MPGe. “Imagine there was a way that 1 gallon of gas could become 33kWh of electricity …”

        1. sven says:

          Miles per kWh (mpkWh) works for me.

        2. Speculawyer says:

          MPGe is NOT a joke. It is an important metric that can be used to always show gearheads that EVs are just more efficient. And the EPA sticker DOES give you the miles/KWH too. So I really wish people would stop whining about MPGe.

          1. Elroy says:

            It really hurts ggpa to hear about MPGe. Its like kryptonite or something.

          2. ggpa says:

            “I really wish people would stop whining about MPGe.” And I really wish people would stop giving credibility to MPGe which is a joke. 😉

            SL, maybe MPGe floats your boat, which is your business, but at least be aware that many people can easily confirm that it is not accurate, and makes a mockery of science, because the starting assumption is invalid.

            1. Nix says:

              ggpa — There isn’t any sort of energy conversion involved with MPGe.

              Nobody is turning gas into electricity, or electricity into gas. They simply contain the exact same BTU’s worth of energy, thus the equality between the two.

              Let me try to explain it to you this way. Which weighs more? A pound of Gold or a pound of Feathers?

              Trick question of course. They both weigh exactly 1 pound. Nobody is magically converting Feathers into Gold. They just have one physical property that is exactly identical that they both share. They both weigh 1 pound, even if the gold will fit in your hand, and the feathers fit in a pillow. That is all. No conversion, no transformation.

              —-=—-

              Now, you should be able to answer this question really easily.

              Which contains more BTU’s worth of energy? 115,000 BTU’s worth of gas, or 115,000 BTU’s worth of electricity?

              Again, it isn’t a trick question. It is very straight forward. They contain the same number of BTU’s of energy.

              Does this clear it up for you?

              1. sven says:

                Then why doesn’t the EPA give a MPGe figure for diesel fuel? A gallon of diesel fuel has a higher BTU than a gallon gasoline. Instead the EPA equates a gallon of diesel with a gallon of gasoline for its MPG figures. The diesel engine gets a higher MPG rating, making it look more efficient when the higher BTU of the diesel is partially responsible for that higher MPG rating. Shouldn’t the EPA apply MPGe ratings be to diesel cars and trucks?

                While we’re at it, should the efficiency of EVs be measured after the thermal energy in natural gas or coal is converted (combustion) into electricity and transmitted to an EV, or should it include the 50%-60% losses incurred from generating electricity from natural gas and coal?

                For example, I used to drive a CNG Honda Civic. How do I compare the efficiency of a CNG Honda Civic to the efficiency of a Nissan Leaf charged on a hypothetical 100% natural gas powered electric grid. Do I compare the MPGe of the CNG Civic from running on a GGE (gallon of gasoline equivalent) of natural gas to the MPGe of the Nissan LEAF from running on a GGE of electricity. Wouldn’t it make more sense to do the efficiency comparison by comparing the MPGe of the LEAF from running on the electricity that a natural gas power plant generates from burning a GGE of natural gas? The later would take into account the efficiency of converting the natural gas to electricity and transmission loses.

                Basically, my question is this: should the efficiency of EV’s include the losses in converting natural gas and coal feedstock into electricity in a thermal power plant?

                1. Nix says:

                  sven –

                  1) Because diesel isn’t an alternative fuel. MPGe was created specifically for alternative fuels. If you have an axe to grind against diesel, it has absolutely nothing to do with alternative fuels or MPGe.

                  2) MPG, MPGe, Kilometers per Kilowatt, Kilometers per 100 liter, etc all have one thing in common. They measure the consumption of the vehicle ONLY. MPG does not include the energy required to refine the gas. MPGe does the same.

                  1. sven says:

                    Well, there is Biodiesel (B100), an alternative fuel which has 103% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline, as opposed to diesel which has 113% of the energy in a gallon diesel.

                    Another alternative fuel is E85 Ethanol, which has only 73% to 83% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline with the variation due to the ethanol content varying from 51% to 83% depending on the climate and season. Yet the EPA lists only MPG ratings for E85, and no MPGe rating to account for the much lower BTU content of E85 as compared to gasoline. As a result the MPG figures of flex-fuel cars are much lower when fueled by E85 as compared to when they are fueled by gasoline. This difference in MPG figures is almost entirely due to the lower BTU content of E85, yet there is no MPGe for E85.

                    1. Nix says:

                      If you want the EPA to start publishing those numbers, you should certainly petition them. They are certainly easy to calculate.

                      The fact that they don’t publish them has no impact on the actual validity of the equations.

                2. Bill Howland says:

                  Sven, was your CNG Honda a gov’t vehicle or your own personally? Did you have a PHILL unit? If so how many hours did you get out of it before you had to have an overhaul?

                  1. sven says:

                    It was a personal vehicle that I owned while I lived in Manahattan. I didn’t own a PHILL unit as I parked on the street and filled up mostly at the two Con Ed power-plants/substations in Manhattan, which were very reliable. BTW, Con Ed required that me to take a fuel filling safety course with the NYC Fire Department before I could use their pumps.

                    Bill, in case you haven’t seen this, I came across the NYISO website, which gives real-time info on NYS’s grid electricity prices, supply, and demand. It’s quite fascinating. You get to see the price per kWh spike to $150 or more for a couple of minutes practically every day.

                    Be sure to click on the buttons or local grids in the map, and also check out the tabs (“Maps” and “Chart & Graphs”) above the map/graph:

                    Maps:
                    http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/maps/index.jsp

                    Graphs:
                    http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/graphs/index.jsp

                    1. Bill Howland says:

                      The tables you referenced me to talked about cost per Mwh, so when you say $150 I’m assuming you mean 15 cents / kwh.

                      But I’m against the Enronization of the power business in the north east, and I’d think consumers would get upset at paying 31 1/2 cents 7/24/365.

                      Has ConEd met its 1% cap of Residential Net Metering customers with solar panels yet?

                      There isn’t much incentive upstate to get solAR panels when utility juice is 11 cents/kwh 24/7/365, but there sure is at triple the price. I assume you are not Smart-Metered, as I, even though having a large solar panel installation 9120 watts – am not Smart-Metered.

              2. ggpa says:

                Nix – I am not sure why you want to repeat what we have covered in the past. I’ll add the link below.

                Your example is off point. Because you start and stop the example at the weight.

                The problem with MPGe is that the energy quantity is the same, but the electrical energy is more useful, and can achieve more than the heat energy.

                Just like the pound of gold can purchase more than the pound of feathers, which then breaks the “equivalence”

                http://insideevs.com/autoline-hours-2016-chevrolet-volt-discussion-chief-volt-engineer-video/

                1. Nix says:

                  Apparently you need to go back and read those comments and re-learn what has already been explained to you.

                  Meanwhile, if you say something uninformed over and over in multiple stories, be prepared to be re-informed each and every time you repeat your mistakes.

                  1. ggpa says:

                    You are mistaken and arrogant. Good luck!

                    1. Nix says:

                      Uninformed Troll Is Uninformed.

                    2. ggpa says:

                      Gee, don’t call yourself an uninformed troll.

                      LOL

                2. Nix says:

                  “The problem with MPGe is that the energy quantity is the same, but the electrical energy is more useful, and can achieve more than the heat energy. ”

                  That’s EXACTLY why MPGe exists. Because you are absolutely correct that you go more miles on the same amount of energy with an electric drivetrain than with gas.

                  That is why a typical EV gets 100+ MPGe, and the typical gas car only gets 25 MPG (or 30’s for ICE vehicles the size of typical EV’s.).

                  You’ve unwittingly just exposed the EXACT meaning of MPGe vs. MPG. MPGe quantifies how much further you can go on the same amount of energy than the more wasteful ICE engine.

                  Sadly, you don’t seem a single inch closer to understanding that, and you seem more and more unwilling to even attempt to understand the more you post. Sometimes the willfully uninformed simply become even more willful at staying uninformed….

                  1. ggpa says:

                    No, sadly, you are wrong. As we discussed before. Good luck.

                    1. Bill says:

                      What is wrong with his numbers?

                    2. ggpa says:

                      So Bill, are you and Nix the same person? (see below)

                    3. Nix says:

                      ggpa — No, “bill” (not bill’s real name) is their own person, who posted using my computer. Without giving up too much of my personal life, “bill” is a brilliant person who knows more about math, science, and physics than you and me and most of the rest of this site combined — but has an annoying habit of reading over my shoulder.

                      In this case, “bill” said “[ggpa] is posting from his reactive mind, let me try”. I saw what bill posted and said “That’s never going to work”.

                      So now you have a unique opportunity. You can actually reply to bill’s post intelligently, and prove me wrong with somebody I greatly respect, or post something silly and prove me right.

                    4. ggpa says:

                      Answer below

          3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Speculawyer

            “MPGe is NOT a joke.”

            Perhaps not precisely a “joke”, but it’s at least highly misleading to suggest to the uninformed that fuel consumption in a gasmobile is, in any meaningful way, directly comparable to how an EV uses battery power.

            It’s as if early motorcar manufacturers measured gasoline consumption in “the equivalent of” bales of hay per hour of travel, because people were used to feeding horses instead of filling up a gas tank.

            Here’s an example of why MPG isn’t directly comparable to miles/kWh: For a typical gasmobile, gas consumption is higher in town, in stop-and-go traffic, than on the highway. For an EV, it’s the reverse.

            Pretending that EV energy efficiency can be measured as if it’s MPG is not helpful. It only perpetuates an illusion that EVs are merely gasmobiles that use a special kind of fuel.

            1. Nix says:

              Pushmi-Pullyu —

              Not all EV’s are more efficient in town. For example, the Tesla Model S consumes more electricity for every 100 miles driven in the City than on the Highway (just like most gas cars).

              Here are the actual numbers from the EPA website:

              City — 35 kWh/100 mi
              Combined — 34 kWh/100 mi
              Highway — 32 kWh/100 mi

              (Please say you understand these numbers, and that you can tell that the Tesla 90D uses less energy on the highway than the City, and that lower numbers are better, vs. MPG where higher numbers are better…)

              Consequently, the MPGe directly reflects this with proportionally better MPGe numbers for Highway than City:

              City — 95 MPGe
              Combined — 100 MPGe
              Highway — 106 MPGe

              MPGe is perfectly suited to capture vehicle efficiency, no matter what speed the vehicle is traveling.

              1. Nix says:

                These numbers are for the 2015 Tesla Model S 90D:

                https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/36786.shtml

          4. ggpa says:

            Consider the above example of a pound of gold vs a pound of feathers. They are equal only for one specific purpose: if you weigh them. If you consume them in any other way the comparison no longer holds.

            Sadly there are some people who like to skip over this fundamental point, so I’ll repeat it: If you consume gold and feathers in any except weighin them, the comparison no longer holds.

            The basis of MPGe is that burning 1 gallon of gasoline creates 33kWh of heat and one of many the options of consuming 33kWh of electricity would be to create this same amount of heat.

            I think this is misleading because in general most electricity is not consumed in this way, and in particular this is how it gets consumed in EVs.

            So if you drying your clothes or heating your swimming pool then 33kWh of electricity can be like a 1 gallon of gasoline, but the equality does not hold when you are driving your EV.

            1. ggpa says:

              Typo … sorry
              … in particular this is NOT how it gets consumed in EVs …

            2. Ryan says:

              I understand the general thrust of your point, but I think a fairer comparison would be, to talk about the $1000’s worth of diamonds and $1000 dollar’s worth of dollars, and how while they are worth the same, one is a lot easier to spend than the other. MPGe isn’t a useless metric, it’s just a very vague and confusing one that goes to make a very easily stated point: Namely that electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline cars.

              1. ggpa says:

                Ryan, you are halfway there. You skipped over the point that I repeated 😉

                There are two parts to the my point
                – how items are measured/compared
                – how items are spent/consumed

                You actually use the same metric in both cases (which is good scientifically), but MPGe does not (this is bad, scientifically).

                Let me try another example, to illustrate how you can measure in one way and consume in another: It is easy to grab a lot of coins when you are teaching a toddler to count, and just count the coins, but ignore the face value.
                – In that case you could make 2 piles of 10 coins each, and say they are equal.
                – But if you go to the store you will find that the pile of quarters buys more than the pile of pennies.

                To summarize – the MPGe assumption is comparing electricity not in the way it is used, which is confusing and inaccurate.

                1. Nix says:

                  The value of a Stack of 200 Pennies is 2.00 in Dollars per Stack of Pennies (2 DPSP).

                  The value of a Stack of 200 Quarters is 50 in Dollars per Stack of Quarters (50 DPSQ).

                  To calculate the buying power equivalent of a Stack of Quarters, in DPSPe (DPSP equivalent), we do simple math (50/2) and find that the buying power of a stack of quarters is the equivalent of 25 DPSP (25 DPSPe).

                  This accurately shows that you can buy 25 times as much with a stack of quarters than you can with a stack of pennies.

                  It is very easy to calculate the equivalent buying power of pennies vs. quarters, if you aren’t a toddler, and are able to do simple math. MPGe is exactly the same. It is a simple math equation that you just take the number of kilowatts consumed over a distance, and do a direct math conversion using simple division to express the kilowatts consumed in MPG equivalents.

                  Please keep up the examples. They just help show that math works.

                  1. Bill says:

                    Notice that I didn’t do anything silly, like actually take a quarter, melt it down, and go through some alchemy process to somehow actually convert it into a penny to calculate equivalency.

                    This should make it clear that you were 100% wrong when you stated at the beginning of this:

                    “I feel the same way about MPGe. “Imagine there was a way that 1 gallon of gas could become 33kWh of electricity …”

                    No, you never have to actually physically make a gallon of gas become 33kWh of electricity to calculate equivalency. Just like you don’t have to actually convert a quarter physically into a penny to calculate equivalency.

                    Do you finally get it? Or are you just more steadfast than ever to intentionally remain uninformed?

                    1. ggpa says:

                      So Bill, are you and Nix the same person?

                    2. Nix says:

                      My apologies, This post was MY post (Nix) that I posted after allowing “Bill” to post using my computer. We are different people, but we both posted from my computer. (See my response to Bill’s email above).

                      I made the mistake of failing to check the Name and Email before I posted, and I erroneously posted under Bill’s name and email. My mistake. Please treat the above post by “Bill” as a post by me.

                2. Nix says:

                  The problem with your coin example, is that you “ignore the face value”. But when calculating the MPGe, we absolutely know the face value.

                  The face value is the ACTUAL NUMBER of kilowatts of electricity consumed in the EPA test cycle. This includes all of the efficiency of using the electric motor to do
                  Work, instead of using the electricity to do Work moving electrons (heating water).

                  I think your problem is that you don’t understand that when you heat something, you are simply applying Work at a molecular/atomic level.

                  The fuel does Work, and you can measure that Work in terms of miles or in terms of temperature. Either way what you get is an exact measure of Work done, in whatever units they are expressed, WITH ALL THE EFFICIENCIES included already!

              2. ggpa says:

                Secondary point, unrelated to measure/consume.

                You write “Namely that electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline cars.”

                I think Sven’s point can be paraphrased that a lot (most in fact) of the efficiency is caused by the fuel, not the car.

                So instead of saying the car is more efficient, you should say it is powered by a more efficient fuel.

                He goes on to ponder if one should consider the amount of feedstock it takes to create this special fuel.

                1. Nix says:

                  Electricity has no “efficiency” all by itself. Gasoline has no “efficiency” all by itself. It is ONLY after that fuel has been consumed by a machine to do Work. You cannot untie the machine from the fuel and still be able to measure efficiency.

                  By “Work”, I mean the physics definition of Work”, W = F̅Δs cos θ. It is impossible to measure efficiency without there actually being work accomplished. Energy itself does no Work.

                  1. ggpa says:

                    Foolish noise – not worthy of a response

                    1. Nix says:

                      Foolish troll not able to respond intelligently is more like it.

                      Can’t wait for your witty schoolyard “I’m rubber, you are glue” style response like when you couldn’t come up with any intelligent response earlier.

                    2. Nix says:

                      BTU’s and Work are equivalencies in the scientific world. A BTU can be expressed directly in terms of Work, as well as Heat:

                      “A BTU can be approximated as … the amount of energy it takes to lift a one-pound weight 778 feet (237 m)”

                      Energy and the Environment. Ristinen, Robert A. c. 2006, pg 14

                      These are fixed scientific definitions. I’m not making these claims. They are well established, documented fact.

                  2. Bill Howland says:

                    Nix, you are trying to figure out the energy in the base fuel (say 115,000 btu/gallon of ehtanoled gasoline), and say how much work ‘in a straight line’ (e.g. cos (0) = 100%) is done by that heat content.

                    This guy doesn’t understand so then he starts getting insulting. He’s the other guy I refer to when I talk to Pupu, – I laughed when Sven says he’s made of H2. You can’t have a serious discussion with these 2 guys out of all the posters on here, because they don’t understand any comparisons you are trying to make, and instead of humbly asking for an elaboration, they take the self-important big-shot route, – today I was just informed by PUPU that he is an expert on air conditioning, as an example. So don’t worry about this stuff too much.

                    I always try to bring “where is the Prime Mover?” into the equation but few want to listen, so I rarely bother anymore. So not a big deal.

                    1. Nix says:

                      Bill Howland — I figured folks like you would get it. You are right about it not sinking in with this one.

                      Sadly, he wants me to explain Newtonian Physics to him, without him actually being willing to put the effort into learning Newtonian Physics.

                      Thanks for the post.

                    2. ggpa says:

                      Nix, sorry to burst your bubble, but Bill’s comment about prime mover is because he is in agreement with Sven, not you. Bill and Sven are members of the group you describe as “1+1=5”

            3. Nix says:

              ggpa — Actually, you have just proven my point once again.

              “Just like the pound of gold can purchase more than the pound of feathers, which then breaks the “equivalence””

              You can easily calculate the gold equivalence of feathers based on value.

              A 1 lb bar of gold has a market value of roughly 16,000 dollars, or 16,000 DPG (dollars per goldbar).

              1 lb of Blue Peacock feathers sells for roughly $500 dollars:

              http://swalefandson.com/washedbluepeacockbodyplumage.aspx

              You can’t buy feathers in “bars”
              (DPG), they are sold loose, or in Dollars per Loose Feathers (DPLF). But you can easily calculate the equivalent value (DPGe) for loose feathers, by simply calculating the known ratio.

              500 / 16,000 == .03125

              So the equivalent market value of 1 lb of feathers is .03125 DPGe

              That should be very, very easy to understand for anybody who actually tries (and understands math). 1 lb of feathers has the market value DPG equivalent of .03125 of the 1 lb gold bars.

              The same applies to MPGe, with the actual mode of consumption ALREADY calculated into the equation, by measuring the actual efficiency of the vehicles in question in kw-hrs/100 miles. The equivalency conversion to MPGe is then calculated AFTER the efficiency has already been measured by empirical means.

              1. ggpa says:

                You write “with the actual mode of consumption ALREADY calculated into the equation”

                Your statement is ONLY true when you use electricity to heat your pool or dry your clothes or something similar, but not driving an EV.

                One such usage could be if you go to the museum and find yourself an old steam powered car. Whether you are powering the steam car boiler with gasoline or electricity, your favorite formula would be true.

                Remember: heat is not the same as electricity, in fact lots of heat is discarded as waste while creating electricity.

                1. Nix says:

                  ggpa — The actual consumption rates absolutely ARE INCLUDED in the EPA test numbers.

                  Those numbers include all electricity and gas that goes into waste heat, sound waves, drivetrain losses, light waves, etc. Everything.

                  If you wanted to calculate the MPGe of a steam powered vehicle run on electricity, you certainly could. No problem. All you would need to know is the number of kilowatts needed to power the vehicle 100 miiles, then do an easy math conversion to MPGe. If would be a very worse number than for a Tesla 90D

                  That’s why your earlier comment about electricity being “more efficient” than gas is simply silly talk. If you use electricity to power a steam engine, you get completely different efficiency than with an electric motor.

                  Just like the MPG of a gasoline heated boiler would be completely different than gas burned in an ICE engine.

                  Like I said in my previous post that you clearly could not comprehend, fuels DO NOT HAVE EFFICIENCY until they are consumed and do work.

                  Sadly, you are now so headstrong in absolutely refusing to understand anything told to you, that your efforts to stay willfully uninformed greatly outweigh your effort to understand basic math.

                  1. ggpa says:

                    Nix, please stop making bold and inaccurate claims.

                    E.g. “with the actual mode of consumption ALREADY calculated into the equation” – it will be wonderful if you stay quiet until you can prove this, i.e. forever!

                    The bottom line is that you cannot simple equate amount of energy without considering the type of energy. As I keep on saying: heat is not electricity.

                    It is a fairy tale that “1 gallon = 33kWh of electricity”. Please prove me wrong in the real world, with real science, not your fantasy.

                    The reason why your posts deserve contempt is because you keep on stating things that are not true, and that looks to me like a deliberate effort to create an environment where others feel uncomfortable to raise their questions or concerns.

                    And then also when people point out flaws in your claims, you respond with long rants that are off point, sounding like a paid puppet who is repeating the party line, prompting others to ignore the guy behind the curtain.

                    It would be way more credible if you ask others about their concerns, and learn from that, rather than repeating false claims. Insideevs.com is a great community, and you have a lot to learn.

                    1. Nix says:

                      Here is how it works.

                      1) The EPA runs tests on a dyno, and glide tests. These tests include all the factors for efficiency for both the motor and the drivetrain. They are baked into the final numbers that the EPA calculates.

                      Are you suggesting that the EPA has magically found a way to run tests that eliminate all the efficiency factors?

                      2) The test route is a fixed distance and time. They collect the number of gallons burned by any ICE motor, and the number of kilowatts drained out of a plug-in battery the vehicle might have.

                      Again, this INCLUDES any fuel (gas or electric) that went to Work that was wasted as heat energy, light energy, sound energy, vibration, drivetrain losses, wind resistance, rolling resistance, tire scrub, etc. Everything related to the efficiency of converting energy into moving the vehicle a fixed distance is ALREADY baked into these numbers.

                      If we can’t agree to that, you are truly a lost cause.

                      3) With all of the measures of efficiency already baked in, the EPA simply does irrefutable math that is based upon decades old science that you could repeat yourself in any lab:

                      1 kWh contains 3,412 BTU of energy
                      1 gallon of gasoline contains 115,000 BTU

                      115,000 ÷ 3,412 = 33.7 ratio

                      This is applied to the actual number of kilowatts consumed, and kilowatts are converted to a unit they name “MPGe”.

                      Here is the math for a car that averages 3 kWh from the battery each mile it drives on the EPA test:

                      3 kWh * 33.7 = 101.1 MPGe

                      Again, the data about efficiency is already represented in the 3 kWh that came from actual glide down and dyno testing. Just like ICE vehicles already have that data imbedded in the MPG number.

            4. ModernMarvelFan says:

              ggpa wrote:”Consider the above example of a pound of gold vs a pound of feathers. They are equal only for one specific purpose: if you weigh them”

              So, when you compare two different forms of energy, how do you compare them? You use the energy content standard or J or MJ in this case. That is how 1 gallon is equivalent to 33.7kWh is derived from as they have the same amount of “MJ of energy”.

              1. ggpa says:

                In general you cannot compare different types of energy. See my other reply to you about apples and oranges.

                The weight example came about when Nix made the point that a pound of X weighs as much as a pound of Y, which is narrowly correct in that specific sense only, because you cannot assume any other properties would also match.

                1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                  “In general you cannot compare different types of energy. See my other reply to you about apples and oranges.”

                  Why can’t you? That is the entire point of comparison.

                  All energy are measured in J or MJ. They are still energy regardless of form. So, when comparing them, we compare their value in J or MJ.

                  Nobody is “converting” them into each other, just comparing the share energy content and energy efficiency.

                  If you insist on “not comparing” them, then we shouldn’t compare diesel and gasoline either as they are different “forms”…

                  LOL. At some point, you have to discuss energy efficiency.

                2. Nix says:

                  Experts in Argonne labs, the EPA, and all over the world do it all the time. They do that when calculating well-to-wheel, in GREET, etc. It is a widely used scientific standard. It is widely recognized as BTU being a factual equality, as used in scientific study after scientific study for decades both inside and outside the automotive industry. This is then equated to the BTU’s of any other form of fuel, all of which have their own BTU rating per unit.

                  “kWh kilo-Watt hour = 3.6 MJ = 3,412 Btu”

                  http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-004/CEC-600-2007-004-F.PDF

                  “3,412 = Btu/kWh”

                  http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/protocol.pdf

                  “The relationship between the kWh and the Btu depends upon which “Btu” is used. It is common, although not universal, to use the equivalence:

                  1 kWh = 3412 Btu.

                  This corresponds to the International Table Btu. [More precisely, 1 kWh = 3412.14 Btu (IT).]”

                  https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/units.cfm

                  I could literally post thousands of examples, but there is a 3 link limit here.

                3. Nix says:

                  Experts in Argonne labs, the EPA, and all over the world do it all the time. They do that when calculating well-to-wheel, in GREET, etc. It is a widely used scientific standard. It is widely recognized as BTU being a factual equality, as used in scientific study after scientific study for decades both inside and outside the automotive industry. This is then equated to the BTU’s of any other form of fuel, all of which have their own BTU rating per unit.

                  “kWh kilo-Watt hour = 3.6 MJ = 3,412 Btu”

                  “The relationship between the kWh and the Btu depends upon which “Btu” is used. It is common, although not universal, to use the equivalence:

                  1 kWh = 3412 Btu.

                  This corresponds to the International Table Btu. [More precisely, 1 kWh = 3412.14 Btu (IT).]”

                  https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/units.cfm

                  I could literally post thousands of examples, but there is a limit on links here.

    3. Breezy says:

      It’s meaningless and useless, but I agree it’s not useful for comparisons between different vehicles.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “It’s meaningless and useless, but I agree it’s not useful for comparisons between different vehicles.”

        Actually that is the entire point. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to compare two different form of energy sources. All energy forms are measured in Joule or MJ. That is how the “equivalent” part comes about.

        1. ggpa says:

          “So, when you compare two different forms of energy, how do you compare them? ”

          Short answer – you cannot directly compare different types of energy just like you cannot directly compare different types of fruit (think apples and oranges!)

          This is the crux of the matter, which is why I repeatedly stated “heat is not electricity” which is just like saying “apples are not oranges”

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            “Short answer – you cannot directly compare different types of energy just like you cannot directly compare different types of fruit (think apples and oranges!)”

            LOL. I guess we should stop doing all engineering work then.

            BTW, nutrientrists or biologist compare apples and oranges all the time. They study their calorie content, amount of Vitamin C, amount of sugar and various nutrients inside.

            We can probably make some kind of wild guess that 1 orange has 2 apple worth of Vitamin C… LOL.

            1. Nix says:

              MMF — Thanks for yet another example of how a mathematical calculation of equivalency is quick and easy.

              Apple = 9 MG of C Per Apple (9 MGCPA)
              Orange = 70 MG C Per Orange (70 MGCPO)

              To find the MGCPAe for an Orange, it is simple math:

              70/9 = 7.777 MGCPAe

              An Orange contains the Vit. C equivalent of 7.777 apples, here stated with the unit MGCPAe.

              You are absolutely right about what you posted.

              http://www.diffen.com/difference/Apples_vs_Oranges

            2. ggpa says:

              MMF, the context here is electric vehicles. But enjoy your calories!

  3. Bloggin says:

    Am I reading this right. 700 miles at 99mpg combined in blended mode, traveling at 75mph?

    Well Done!

  4. Jacked says:

    If you don’t label your charts then how do you expect readers to interpret them?

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Jacked,

      The charts aren’t ours, they are via EPA/OEM worksheets…the information is not meant specifically for public consumption – just something we have access to and decided to share after watching the video and the lack of the data being referenced quite a bit.

      We do our best in the captions on the pictures to help point out what data is being presented.

  5. Jeff N says:

    I’m not sure what the 29/34/31 row is for in the blended mpgs chart in the article. Was that for another car?

  6. James says:

    I’ve found 55mph to be the sweet spot for my GEN1 Volt. Anything above that seems to sap the range.

  7. Speculawyer says:

    This shows why we really need some great PHEV SUVs. Pure electric SUVs are just not affordable at the current time and not likely in the near future. Especially when driven in cold weather and at high speeds. But PHEV SUV can slash gasoline usage by 50% to 90% if a person uses it during their commute. Especially if they can charge up at work.

  8. ffbj says:

    Reasonable testing and a good result.

  9. kdawg says:

    What happens when they do this test with a Tesla? Infinity MPG?

    1. Nix says:

      I’m not sure what point you are trying to get at, but I’ll give you the factual answer anyways.

      In a 70D, the answer is 102 MPGe highway, which is the actual consumption of 33 kw-hrs/100 miles. The EPA highway rating includes both measurements. (Other versions of the Model S are similar.)

      https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/36126.shtml

      Is there something with the numbers from this story that would lead you to sarcasm, or some other motivation to your post?

      1. kdawg says:

        Did you watch how they calculated MPG? It was based on how much gas they put back in the car. It had nothing to do with MPGe. So obviously this method won’t work with a Tesla and they said they would like to test other EVs. Any BEV (that can go 100 miles) isn’t testable by their method.

  10. Bill Howland says:

    The GEN 2 volt seems pretty good, since 75 mph is hard on the mileage on any car.

    I’ve seen mileage in the GEN 1 ELR go from excellent to horrible…But 30-40 mph is fantastic.

  11. Proton says:

    My 2015 silver, base with safety package #1 consistently charges (110v) to 50 miles electric range. In south Florida (flat and warm), during city driving (30-45mph), it delivers 52-53miles without AC and 47-49miles with AC set at 76F. My 2015 Volt brochure and all the blogs talk about the 2015 range as being 38 miles! No way. I suppose, the constantly repeated increase from Gen 1 to Gen 2 as being from 38 mi to 53 makes for better press and spin and puffing.

    1. MTN Ranger says:

      Battery capacity increased from the 2014 (16.5kWh) to 2015 model year (17.1kWH), however GM didn’t update the EPA ratings. It probably should be rated at 40-41 miles per charge.

  12. Murrysville EV says:

    Sorry – 75 mph is not ‘real world’.

    Anyone driving this fast should not expect to get EPA-like numbers, period, so I can’t take any meaning from their findings.

    The average speed in the EPA highway cycle is 48 mph:
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      75mph doesn’t match EPA testing cycles, but it probably matches what people do in the real world on the interstate hwy.

      1. ggpa says:

        At 6000 feet the air density is about 20% less than sea level, which is one of the reasons they got such excellent mileage.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          “At 6000 feet the air density is about 20% less than sea level, which is one of the reasons they got such excellent mileage.”

          Yes, the air resistance is lower. But due to 20% lower air density, you also lose a lot of power in the engine which impacts efficiency as well.

          I don’t know if it is a “wash” on top of my head, but it is going to impact efficiency.

          1. ggpa says:

            “due to 20% lower air density, you also lose a lot of power in the engine which impacts efficiency as well.”

            Obviously the maximum engine power is less, meaning if you floor the pedal then the engine output will be less than sea level.

            If you are using partial throttle, I am not so sure that the efficiency is much different on modern fuel injected engines. I expect the engine computer adjusts for the air density, so it uses the optimal fuel to air ratio, over a wide range of air density.

            So I expect it is not a wash, but I do not know for sure.

  13. ggpa says:

    Hi Bill and Nix

    I gave the proper answer “No, sadly, you are wrong. As we discussed before. Good luck.”. If you think this answer is inappropriate, we could discuss that.

    Bill asked “What is wrong with his numbers?” The short answer is “Nix’s answer is wrong regardless the math”.

    In more detail: Nix is using a invalid conversion in his logic. Nix calls it “equivalency” and that states that 1 gallon of gasoline is equivalent to a certain amount of electrical energy. Using that false conversion makes the result wrong, regardless of the math. Even if you start with a perfectly valid measurement of mi/kWh, it gets messed up once you apply the invalid conversion.

    The equivalency is false because electrical energy is not equivalent to heat. That means 1kWh of electrical energy is not equivalent to 1kWh of heat. Now if you want to claim that 1kWh of electrical energy is indeed equivalent to 1kWh of heat, then you are welcome to supply proof. The way science works is that things are false by default. You have to prove them to be true.

    Now, I have pointed out this flaw in Nix’s logic many times. I have tried numerous examples to help him see this issue. Now if he was a sincere and open person, he would have asked me to explain the problem that I have with his conversion, and then address the details of that.

    Sadly, Nix never does that. He starts running 100 miles per hour in any direction to get away from that topic, then posts rants that are off point, distorts the examples I offer, calls me names, etc.

    At this stage I assume Nix is very aware of the flawed conversion, which is why I referred him to our previous exchange, rather than repeating it.

    I think folks like Nix get away with the MPGe distortion because many people do not know science or metric units, so they do not notice when Nix uses a false conversion to metaphorically substitute apples for oranges. Also in one limited context a rather similar conversion can be true, and most folks do not have the background to see that Nix is using a conversion in the wrong context.

    The other false logic that Nix used was to say 1 pound of X weighs as much as one pound of Y. Yes, that is narrowly true, and that does not mean X has the same value as Y, or X has the density as Y. Etc.

    Personally I have no problem with any ratio that Nix likes to calculate. Whatever floats his boat. But his conversion is not scientifically accurate.

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “Personally I have no problem with any ratio that Nix likes to calculate. Whatever floats his boat. But his conversion is not scientifically accurate.”

      LOL.

      It is absolutely scientifically accurate. All energy regardless of form are measured in the SI unit of J or MJ. So, two different type of energy are absolutely measurable in the SI unit of J or MJ by conversion into heat, thus the equivalency.

      There is no reason to continue your argument saying that “different forms of energy aren’t comparable”. That is just simply not true. You don’t have to be able to convert them in order to compare or measure them. That is two different thing.

      1. ggpa says:

        MMF … you are welcome to post something scientific here.

        Like I said “The way science works is that things are false by default. You have to prove them to be true.”

        If I understand you correctly, you essentially claim “1kWh of electrical energy is indeed equivalent to 1kWh of heat”.

        Please supply proof. And please consider the context we care about here is electric vehicles.

    2. Nix says:

      ggpa — open any physics text book, or put “1 kwh 3412 btu” in any search engine. It is a well established scientific definition used by scientists across the world. You can literally find thousands upon thousands of references to the equivalency.

      The reason I insult you is because the more completely valid sources, math, explanations, and examples I provide, the harder you work at intentionally remaining uniformed. I imagine that might be the same reason MMF LOL’ed at you.

      I say this, because instead of actually going out and doing the google search I posted, or following any of the links I put above, you will steadfastly insist you are still right.

      1. ggpa says:

        Nix, with all due respect, this is your usual routine “run away at 100 mile per hour”.

        1 kWh of X (where X is anything) is the same as 3412 BTU of X. What you are saying is obvious, a ratio, like saying 1 dozen = 12.

        The thing about science is that things are kind of precise, so 1 dozen of X is 12 X, not 12 Y

        Please prove how
        1 kWh of X is the same as 3412 BTU of Y

        If this is such established science, you should find the proof easily. And the proof should be short and concise, easy to post here.

        Until then, it is false.

        1. Nix says:

          ggpa — Try this high school text, since you are clearly ignoring everything else I’ve posted

          http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/49184.html

          Summary
          Because energy plays a fundamental role in all environmental problems, it behooves the student to become familiar at an early stage with energy concepts and terminology. The environmental scientist must also get accustomed to specialized terms that are used in different disciplines and industries. The gas company is not going to convert cubic feet into Btus for you, just as the electric company is not going to convert kWh to joules.

          IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT STUDENT TO BE ABLE TO PUT UNITS ON A COMMON BASIS IN ORDER TO MAKE VALID COMPARISONS. (emphasis added by Nix)

          For instance, is a natural gas furnace more economical or more environmentally benign than baseboard electric heating for an average home? Could solar energy supply all the heating needs for a home in Cleveland? How much electricity could be generated by installing solar panels on the roof of a home in Arizona? How much biomass can be grown on an acre of land in Missouri? A thorough understanding of energy units and terminology will go a long way to help the environmentalist make such analyses easy and commonplace.

        2. ggpa says:

          Nix, thanks for the college link.

          But it does not say heat is the same as electricity.

          The thing about conversions is that they have to match reality.

          BTW, if you want to be scientific and rigorous, did you know that it is easy to use 1kWh of electricity to get 4kWh of heat?

          Also it is impossible to convert 1kWh of heat into 1kWh of electricity, it takes at least 3kWh of heat to make 1kWh of electricity.

          1. Nix says:

            There is no “making” of anything. It is equivalent units. Stop repeating that bit of intentional ignorance.

            And it is not kWh of heat. It is BTU’s of heat.

            1. ggpa says:

              In the metric system 1kWh = 3.6MJ and it is a perfectly valid unit to express heat energy.

              Scientists usually know that.

              1. Nix says:

                Yes, 1kWh = 3.6 MJ and 1 gallon of gasoline = 121.33 MJ

                Every scientist knows all that.

                http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13006_ldv_life_cycle_costs.pdf

                Now the math is really simple, to find the equivalent amount of kWh to a gallon of gas simply solve for X:

                X kWh = 1 gallon of gasoline.

                Easy math. Doing substitution, the equation becomes:

                X (3.6 MJ) = 121.33 MJ

                Divide both sides by 3.6 MJ, and you get 121.33 MJ / 3.6 MJ, and the answer for X is 33.7

                33.7 kWh = 1 gallon of gas.

                Everybody knows all of this except you. You’ve been given source after source after source, and the only impediment to you understanding is you.

                1. Nix says:

                  ggpa — IF you can contest the math, tell me which section is wrong, A, B, or C?

          2. Nix says:

            It isn’t a college link. It is an AP class link. AP classes are done in high school. This is high school stuff.

        3. Nix says:

          example 2 from the EPA that you will also likely ignore:

          http://www.eia.gov/Energyexplained/?page=about_energy_units

          Units for comparing energy

          Some popular units for comparing energy include British thermal units (Btu), barrels of oil equivalent, metric tons of oil equivalent, metric tons of coal equivalent, and terajoules.

          In the United States, Btu, a measure of heat energy, is the most commonly used unit for comparing fuels. Because energy used in different countries comes from different places, Btu content of fuels varies slightly from country to country.

          Btu content of each fuel provided below is the average heat content for fuels consumed in the United States in 2014.
          Btu content of common energy units

          1 barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil = 5,800,000 Btu (for U.S. produced crude oil)
          1 gallon of gasoline = 120,476 Btu
          1 gallon of diesel fuel = 137,381 Btu (distillate fuel with less than 15 parts per million sulfur content)
          1 gallon of heating oil = 138,500 Btu (distillate fuel with 15 to 500 parts per million sulfur content)
          1 barrel of residual fuel oil = 6,287,000 Btu
          1 cubic foot of natural gas = 1,028 Btu
          1 gallon of propane = 91,333 Btu
          1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of coal = 19,548,000 Btu
          1 kilowatthour of electricity = 3,412 Btu

          Examples of converting different energy sources to Btu

          Example 1:

          You have a natural gas furnace in your home that used 81,300 cubic feet of natural gas for heating last winter. Your neighbor has a furnace that burns heating oil, and used 584 gallons of heating oil last winter. You can convert the natural gas and heating oil consumption data into Btu to determine which home used more energy for heating.

          Natural gas: 81,300 cubic feet (your home)

          x

          1,028 Btu per cubic foot

          = 83,576,400 Btu

          Heating oil: 584 gallons (neighbor’s home)

          x

          138,590 Btu per gallon

          = 80,936,560 Btu

          Result: You used more energy to heat your home.

          1. ggpa says:

            Nix, to me this seems to be another off topic rant, a diversion.

            1. Nix says:

              It is dead on the nail head on-topic, directly from the EPA itself, with instructions and an example on how to do the exact same math that has repeatedly been done for you, in order to compare energy sources.

              This is yet another example of everything you ask for being handed to you on a silver platter, with you intentionally searching high and low for any excuse to intentionally stay ignorant. This is why you get insulted, and why you get LOL’ed at. Your post is yet another lame excuse for remaining intentionally blind to fact after fact after fact.

              1. ggpa says:

                Garbage!

                1. Nix says:

                  There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

                  Jonathan Swift
                  ‘Polite Conversation’

      2. ggpa says:

        PS: The insults you post are low class. Really

        Also, there are several people on insideevs.com that express that MPGe is bad. It is not a conspiracy, they independently believe this.

        If you are abrasive enough to silence the other voices, they are not wrong.

        1. Nix says:

          100 people saying 1+1=5 doesn’t make “people” right. Your argument that other people don’t like MPGe holds no scientific value.

    3. ggpa says:

      Nix, Bill, MMF

      You have not provided proof that 1kWh of electricity = 1 kWh of heat.

      It is easy to find real life conversions where 1kWh of electricity exceeds 1 kWh of heat.

      What Nix calls “equivalent” is in fact not.

      Have a nice day.

      1. Nix says:

        Proven mathematically, and from authoritative sources multiple times. It has been handed to you on a silver platter. you simply reject what you aren’t willing to understand.

        1. ggpa says:

          Garbage!

        2. ggpa says:

          Nix

          If you were honest, you would admit that you are making a lot of noise and diversion and avoiding the issue.

          You keep on repeating “1kWh = 1 kWh”

          You never demonstrated “1kWh of electricity = 1 kWh of heat”.

          1. Nix says:

            Actually, I did. You ignored it. Here it is again, using MJ, since that was your own choice of measure:

            1 kWh = 3.6 MJ
            1 gallon of gas = 121.33 MJ

            A) To find the equivalent amount of kWh to a gallon of gas simply solve for X:

            X kWh = 1 gallon of gasoline.

            B) Doing substitution, the equation becomes:

            X (3.6 MJ) = 121.33 MJ

            C) Divide both sides by 3.6 MJ, and you get 121.33 MJ / 3.6 MJ, and solving for X is 33.7

            33.7 kWh = 1 gallon of gas.

            If you do not understand any particular bit of math, just ask and reference which section (A,B or C) is unclear to you.

            1. ggpa says:

              You are being dishonest again, your “proof” does not even contain the word electricity

              1. Nix says:

                Holy crap. Are you seriously now bitching because you need that fact that every time I say kWh, you need me too spoon feed you like a child that I’m talking about electricity???? Because you can’t figure that out for yourself? Easy enough.

                1 kWh electricity = 3.6 MJ heat
                1 gallon of gas = 121.33 MJ heat

                A) To find the equivalent amount of kWh of electricity to a gallon of gas simply solve for X:

                X kWh electricity = 1 gallon of gasoline.

                B) Doing substitution, the equation becomes:

                X (3.6 MJ heat) = 121.33 MJ heat

                C) Divide both sides by 3.6 MJ heat, and you get 121.33 MJ heat / 3.6 MJ heat, and solving for X is 33.7

                33.7 kWh electricity = 1 gallon of gas.

                If you do not understand any particular bit of math, just ask and reference which section (A,B or C) is unclear to you.

                1. Nix says:

                  ggpa — exactly what section of this math do you disagree with? A, B, or C?

                  Still waiting

    4. ggpa says:

      Nix, Bill, MMF

      The “1+1=5” club is introducing its latest member: Forbes magazine.

        1. Nix says:

          Wow. You really are absolutely desperate to intentionally blind yourself. You’ve just aligned yourself with a notorious self-described climate change denier and pro-oil / XL Pipeline fanatic. He has dozens and dozens of stories well establishing his anti-green credentials.

          Please don’t tell me you are one of THOSE people too….

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/12/13/bait-and-switch-in-the-climate-debate/

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/01/19/keystone-xl-voting-for-the-stone-age/

          I am actually already familiar with that article you posted, because it was reported to a number of green car blogs back when it was originally written. It was widely bashed and debunked 5 years ago when it was originally written.

          He did such a bad job on that story you posted, that he states “I have put updates in the original article in response to a number of the comments”, but interestingly he has chosen to delete all of the original back-and-forth arguments with the original posters who forced him into admitting he was wrong. Interestingly, he has also reverted the story back to the original uncorrected version….

          1. ggpa says:

            Nix, you are banging on the table again. You are unable to refute anything, so you are going your famous “off point rant”.

            I am not aligning myself to anyone, but I am willing to listen to arguments and evaluate them. In theory, I could even agree with you sometime.

            I think it is safe to assume you are spending a lot of time, posting these long rants because you could not find any evidence online that supports your point of view.

          2. ggpa says:

            PS: I cover below that you make personal attacks rather than refuting ideas where that seem to be agreement across the ideological spectrum, which makes me wonder …

            What I wonder is your statement that you remember this article from before, so this tells me you have been on this ideological battle a long time, and STILL you have ZERO proof of ANYTHING. You just have wild claims.

            You love to talk about well “established”, documented facts, but after years of doing this you just have smoke, mirror, distortion, insults, personal attacks.

            FWIW I found the article thanks to Google, I never heard of this author before, and I deliberately ignore the cheap shot about the fact that you have been a follower for 5 years 😉

            1. Nix says:

              “FWIW I found the article thanks to Google, I never heard of this author before”

              Normally, somebody who posts those words, when they find out they’ve just posted a politically motivated op/ed, the next words they post are “my mistake”…..

              Yes, I was around 5 years ago when this FUD was originally debunked. I’ve been fighting politically motivated FUD thrown at green cars like this much longer than just 5 years ago. I’ve been on green car sites another 5 years before, fighting infamous FUD generators like this guy. I’ve been there for all the “Coal car” FUD, all the “Tesla Roadster/Model S/Model 3 is vaporware” FUD. I’ve fought it all while promoting green cars for a long long time.

              I’m damn proud of it.

  14. ggpa says:

    Nix

    One can claim ignorance up to a point, but you are now a text book example of your own words “There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See”. You are clearly being disingenuous here.

    You did not even notice that you are in conflict with your BFF, Bill Howland.

    If the facts supported your point of view, you would have presented them, but you choose long rants and insults.

    I post a link to an article written by a right wing author that agrees with the Clinton administration (think how wide an ideological range that covers) that disagrees with you.

    You take the time to find links to attack the author, but you cannot find links to discredit his ideas or support yours. That is a really low class trick.

    If you were honest, you would admit that you are making a lot of noise and diversion and avoiding the issue.

    You keep on repeating identities such as “1 BTU = 1055 J”.

    You keep on claiming equivalence that you cannot prove.

    You never demonstrated “1kWh of electricity = 1kWh of heat”, whereas I have presented the opposite several times.

    My post of 1/6 11:33 am is still completely accurate, which means the best answer to you is “No, sadly, you are wrong. As we discussed before. Good luck.”

    1. Nix says:

      Wow, how many times do I have to correct you?

      Like I said before, there is no such thing as “1 kWh of heat”. It is BTU’s of heat. Or MJ of heat. Or Calories of heat. You don’t even understand that basic science. You saying kWh of heat over and over is as bad as saying a battery pack is a “20 kW” battery pack over and over instead of “20 kWh” and never learning the difference between kW and kWh no mater how many times you are told.

      Not only have I already provided proof using both BTU and MJ, the math doesn’t even depend upon heat!! Here is the same math using newton meters.

      1 kilowatt hour (kWh) electricty = 3600000 newton meters (N-m)

      1 gallon of E10 gas = 121331428.5 newton meters (N-m)

      A) To find the equivalent amount of kWh of electricity to a gallon of gas simply solve for X:

      X kWh electricity = 1 gallon of gasoline.

      B) Doing substitution, the equation becomes:

      X (3600000 newton meters (N-m)
      ) = 121331428.5 newton meters (N-m)

      C) Divide both sides by 3600000 newton meters (N-m), and you get 121331428.5 newton meters (N-m)
      divided by 3600000 newton meters (N-m), and solving for X is 33.7

      33.7 kWh electricity = 1 gallon of gas.

      If you do not understand any particular bit of math, just ask and reference which section (A,B or C) is unclear to you.

      1. ggpa says:

        see below

        1. Nix says:

          Exactly what section of the math do you disagree with?

          Section A, B, or C?

    2. Nix says:

      And we already know that it is perfectly valid to express kWh as heat. You said so yourself when you used MJ of heat in your own post. To quote back yourself:

      “ggpa
      January 5, 2016 at 2:55 pm

      In the metric system 1kWh = 3.6MJ and it is a perfectly valid unit to express heat energy.

      Scientists usually know that.”

      Are you now claiming you have unlearned what scientists all know, and you knew yourself just a day ago?

      1. ggpa says:

        you write “Like I said before, there is no such thing as “1 kWh of heat” and you also say “And we already know that it is perfectly valid to express kWh as heat.”

        You are contradicting yourself. You are wrong, desperate and running in circles.

        1. Nix says:

          Units have meaning.

          kWh is not a measure of heat. You cannot say you have 1 kWh of heat. It is meaningless. kWh is a measure of energy.

          You can say you have the equivalent of 1 kWh of heat, but the units of the equivalent is MJ or Btu. And 1 kWh of energy (electricity) would be expressed as 3.6 MJ of Heat, if you are going to talk in units of heat.

          You can’t simply redefine units of energy to be units of heat. You have to do the math to go from units of energy (electricity), and then express the results in units of heat.

          This is all very clear in the two links I posted earlier about how to calculate energy equivalents in the link to the AP prep class, and the link to the EPA website. Go back and read them

          Oh, right, you;ve intentionally blinded yourself to all of those 12 links I posted, and you claim Nix = no links….

          1. ggpa says:

            “You cannot say you have 1 kWh of heat. ”

            First ask yourself why “instead of humbly asking for an elaboration,” you “take the self-important big-shot route”?

            Now that we got that out of the way, here is the description why it is fine to use “kWh of heat”

            If you google “kWh of heat” or “kW of heat” or especially “MW of heat”, you get millions and millions of hits.

            It used to be common to use a subscript “e” for electrical power/energy and t (or th) for heat, but that has fallen out of favor, which is why many folks (including myself) now specify it as “of heat” or “of electricity” of “of cooling”.

            The goal is to avoid confusion about types of energy. In American documents the units are often a clue, but if a document is completely metric (which I have seen for some medical facilities) you will find many of these explicit notations in discussions regarding HVAC or CHP.

            1. Nix says:

              That is an entirely different context. We are talking about kWh in electric vehicles, meaning batteries. When talking about kWh of energy stored in electric batteries, nobody is talking about heat in the batteries.

              Again, to quote yourself:

              “ggpa
              January 5, 2016 at 1:59 pm

              MMF, the context here is electric vehicles.”

              1. Nix says:

                Here, let me fix it since you’ve forgotten we are on a green car website, and the context we are talking about for kWh is EV batteries:

                Units have meaning.

                kWh is not a measure of heat in an electric car’s battery. You cannot say you have 1 kWh of heat in an electric car’s battery. It is meaningless. kWh is a measure of energy in an electric car’s battery.

                You can say you have the equivalent of 1 kWh of heat in an electric car’s battery, but the units of the equivalent is MJ or Btu. And 1 kWh of energy (electricity) would be expressed as 3.6 MJ of Heat, if you are going to talk in units of heat.

                You can’t simply redefine units of energy stored in an electric car’s battery to be units of heat. You have to do the math to go from units of energy (electricity), and then express the results in units of heat.

                This is all very clear in the two links I posted earlier about how to calculate energy equivalents in the link to the AP prep class, and the link to the EPA website. Go back and read them

                Oh, right, you;ve intentionally blinded yourself to all of those 12 links I posted, and you claim Nix = no links….

                1. ggpa says:

                  Thanks for restating my case “You can’t simply redefine units of energy stored in an electric car’s battery to be units of heat. You have to do the math to go from units of energy (electricity), and then express the results in units of heat.”

                  Likewise “Nix can’t simply redefine units of energy stored in gasoline to be units of energy (electricity)”

                  1. Nix says:

                    I’m not doing that. I’m not saying that a 5 gallon gas tank contains 5 gallons of Heat. That would be as ignorant as saying a 20 kWh battery contains 20 kWh of heat.

                    I’m actually doing exactly what I said: “You have to do the math to go from units of energy (electricity), and then express the results in units of heat.”

                    If you don’t understand the difference between doing the math to change from gallons or kWh to heat, and just slapping the word heat next to gallons or kWh, you will never understand any of the math I’ve posted.

                    1. Nix says:

                      Let me show you the difference between doing it right, and doing it wrong:

                      Correct:
                      1 kWh electricity in an EV battery = 3.6 MJ heat
                      1 gallon of gas in a gas tank = 121.33 MJ heat

                      Incorrect:

                      1 kWh of Heat in an EV battery
                      1 gallon of Heat in a gas tank

                      Please say you understand the difference….

                    2. ggpa says:

                      “you will never understand any of the math I’ve posted.”

                      Actually I understand it 100%, and I know where you go wrong.

                      The problem is because you start with

                      1 kilowatt hour (kWh) electricity = 3600000 newton meters (N-m)

                      1 gallon of E10 gas = 121331428.5 newton meters (N-m)

                      and then massage the right hand sides to match.

                      But you will have better luck if you started with training wheels, like

                      1 kilowatt hour (kWh) electricity = 3600000 newton meters (N-m) of electricity

                      1 gallon of E10 gas = 121331428.5 newton meters (N-m) of heat

                    3. ggpa says:

                      Incorrect:

                      1 kWh electricity in an EV battery = 3.6 MJ heat

                      Correct

                      1 kWh electricity in an EV battery = 3.6 MJ electricity

                    4. Nix says:

                      My math has been 100% correct from the beginning. If you don’t like MJ, it all still works with Btu’s of energy. Straight from an engineering site:

                      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/energy-content-d_868.html

                      Electricity 1 kWh=3412 Energy Content(Btu)

                      Gasoline 1 Gallon=124000 Energy Content(Btu)

                      (note, the EPA uses 115000 Energy Content (Btu) instead of 124000, because the EPA adjusts for ethanol content in US fuels. I will use the EPA number).

                      A) To find the equivalent amount of kWh of electricity to a gallon of gas simply solve for X:

                      X kWh electricity = 1 gallon of gasoline.

                      B) Doing substitution, the equation becomes:

                      X (3412 Energy Content(Btu)) = 115000 Energy Content (Btu)

                      C) Divide both sides by 3412 Energy Content(Btu), and you get 115000 Energy Content (Btu) / 3412 Energy Content(Btu), and solving for X is 33.7

                      33.7 kWh electricity = 1 gallon of gas.

                      The inputs come straight from an engineering site, not some op/ed from some politial hack, so they are solid. If you do not understand any particular bit of math, just ask and reference which section (A,B or C) is unclear to you.

                  2. ggpa says:

                    Sorry, but you are wrong.

                    1. Nix says:

                      which section (A,B or C)? If you can’t name what is wrong, your post doesn’t count.

      2. ggpa says:

        PS – when I wrote “1kWh = 3.6MJ and it is a perfectly valid unit to express heat energy”

        it means

        1kWh of heat = 3.6MJ of heat

        1. Nix says:

          I see, so you didn’t understand that we are on a green car website, talking about EV’s with electric batteries when you said that. Got it.

          1. ggpa says:

            So when you are talking about green cars the following is invalid “1kWh of heat = 3.6MJ of heat”?

            For somebody who talk about “Newtonian Physics”, did you find a rule that says it does not apply to EVs?

            Please tell us more!

            1. Nix says:

              Answered above.

  15. ggpa says:

    Nix is short for “no links”.

    On a forum like this, many people back their claims up with links, but not you. Facts do not seem to play a role in your postings.

    The only thing I know for sure is that you posted on this forum using multiple identities. Everything else about you is suspect, and may well be BS.

    You claim some things are established, but Nix
    You claim an article “was widely bashed and debunked”, but Nix

    The “1+1=5” group covers a wide range from Al Gore to Forbes.

    I considered that you might be a paid puppet, but they typically wrap their lies in interesting stories, whereas your postings are just intellectually empty.

    The internet and many people state that you are wrong. Good luck.

    1. Nix says:

      I haven’t posted any links? Wow, you really are intentionally blind!! Why make such idiotic claims that anybody can easily debunk by simply scrolling up and seeing all the links I’ve posted with their own eyes.

      Anybody can scroll up and count all 12 of the links I’ve posted. All of which you clearly haven’t even bothered to read.

      And all of my links have been to primary sources, or to established educational websites. While you post links to an opinion piece. Do you know the difference between news on a news site, and opinion pieces on news sites? Clearly not. Because opinion pieces do not hold the authority of a news piece.

      1. ggpa says:

        The links you posted were not helpful to you or your argument. So they do not count.

        1. Nix says:

          Yet another example of your intentional blindness. If you don’t like a dozen links that prove you wrong, you simply claim that I never posted them!! Absolutely hilarious!

  16. ggpa says:

    I think it is time to conclude that the following article is the undisputed truth. I am happy to think this conversation is over.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/11/24/the-epas-electric-vehicle-mileage-fraud/

    1. Nix says:

      LOL!!! You don’t seem to understand that isn’t even a news story. It is an opinion piece. One written by a well-known, self-admitting climate change denier who runs a blog called “Climate-Skeptic.com”

      That story was so powerfully debunked in his own comments section, that he resorted to delete nearly all the comments in his comment section, and he was forced to rewrite part of his story.

      If you want to see it debunked, why not contact the author and get him to restore all the posts he deleted?

      1. ggpa says:

        As always, Nix loves to make a lot of claims, but when it comes to proof, it is no links (or Nix for short).

        1. Nix says:

          He admits right in the link you provided that he was debunked, and had to rewrite it because people in the comments section proved him wrong. It is right in your own link, I don’t have to provide it again.

          And I provided the link to his climate sceptic site. Apparently you are blind to that too.

          But you still haven’t managed to admit that this is not a scientific website like those that I posted. It is an op/ed from a self-described libertarian political operative. Again, right from the webpage you got it from.

          This isn’t some political BS website like fox news where right wing political op/ed’s are used as “evidence”. We’re an automotive website. Who are you going to quote next? Glenn Beckkk? Sorry, not a trustworthy source either.

          Learn the difference between a politically motivated op/ed, and an actual science or education site like I’ve posted.

          Keep making a fool of yourself, let’s see if your intentional blindness can reach a full 200 posts.

          1. ggpa says:

            Gee, you are desperate. All hot air and no facts.

            If somebody gets writes something online and updates it based on comments, it is called a correction. And it happens regularly. Where do you get “debunked”.

            You are contradicting yourself and wrong on the science and facts. And if you attach people personally when you do not like their ideas.

            One thing I know for sure is that you could not find any reputable site that disagrees with this post. And that is proof.

          2. ggpa says:

            “He admits right in the link you provided that he was debunked, and had to rewrite it because people in the comments section proved him wrong. It is right in your own link, I don’t have to provide it again.”

            Where is this?

            1. Nix says:

              I’ve already provide the quote above for you. You ignored it.

              1. ggpa says:

                You just made this all up!!!! You are that delusional!!!

                1. Nix says:

                  Yawn. I provided the quote earlier where the author of that op/ed had to admit his own errors:

                  “I have put updates in the original article in response to a number of the comments”

                  Right at the link you provided. I realize you ignore my links, but do you really ignore your own too, and need me to tell you what they say also?

                  1. ggpa says:

                    I know, I mentioned it above, it is called a correction. And it happens regularly.

                    Why on earth do you use exaggerated and charged words like “debunked”, “rewrite” except to draw attention to your delusions?

                    He made those corrections 4 years ago and you can read all the comments since then. They are tame. This article has stood for 4 years, despite the efforts of folks like yourself.

                    I am sure you searched very intensely – and you have not found a credible source that proves him wrong.

                    1. Nix says:

                      It’s still official, Still no scientific evidence provided that this website is wrong:

                      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/energy-content-d_868.html

                      Electricity 1 kWh=3412 Energy Content(Btu)

                      Gasoline 1 Gallon=124000 Energy Content(Btu)

                      (note, the EPA uses 115000 Energy Content (Btu) instead of 124000, because the EPA adjusts for ethanol content in US fuels. I will use the EPA number).

                      A) To find the equivalent amount of kWh of electricity to a gallon of gas simply solve for X:

                      X kWh electricity = 1 gallon of gasoline.

                      B) Doing substitution, the equation becomes:

                      X (3412 Energy Content(Btu)) = 115000 Energy Content (Btu)

                      C) Divide both sides by 3412 Energy Content(Btu), and you get 115000 Energy Content (Btu) / 3412 Energy Content(Btu), and solving for X is 33.7

                      33.7 kWh electricity = 1 gallon of gas.

                      The source is uncontested, and the math in each of sections A,B and C) are uncontested.

                      Math and authoritative engineering websites still win over self-admitted right wing climate deniers and oil industry proponent who writes op/ed’s.

  17. ggpa says:

    More proof that following article is the undisputed truth is that our own science-denier, Nix, has been unable to find any reputable source to impugn it. I am sure he tried very hard.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/11/24/the-epas-electric-vehicle-mileage-fraud/

  18. Nix says:

    It’s official, my math below is completely uncontested:

    Uncontested scientific source from an engineering website site:

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/energy-content-d_868.html

    Electricity 1 kWh=3412 Energy Content(Btu)

    Gasoline 1 Gallon=124000 Energy Content(Btu)

    (note, the EPA uses 115000 Energy Content (Btu) instead of 124000, because the EPA adjusts for ethanol content in US fuels. I will use the EPA number).

    A) To find the equivalent amount of kWh of electricity to a gallon of gas simply solve for X:

    X kWh electricity = 1 gallon of gasoline.

    B) Doing substitution, the equation becomes:

    X (3412 Energy Content(Btu)) = 115000 Energy Content (Btu)

    C) Divide both sides by 3412 Energy Content(Btu), and you get 115000 Energy Content (Btu) / 3412 Energy Content(Btu), and solving for X is 33.7

    33.7 kWh electricity = 1 gallon of gas.

    The source is uncontested, and the math in each of sections A,B and C) are uncontested.

    Math and authoritative engineering websites win over self-admitted right wing climate deniers and oil industry proponent who writes op/ed’s every time.

    1. ggpa says:

      Your math is wrong

      Electricity 1 kWh=3412 Energy Content(Btu)

      Gasoline 1 Gallon=124000 Energy Content(Btu)

      If you equate those BTU lines, you conveniently forget that one is electricity and the other is heat.

      And in top of it all … you invented the following “and had to rewrite it because people in the comments section proved him wrong.” …

      LOL – there seems no limit to the fiction you are willing to create!!!

      1. Nix says:

        Both units are “Energy Content(Btu)”, straight from an engineering website. I realize you like to ignore every single website I post, but it is right there on the website, easy to see.

        If you have evidence that this website is wrong, go ahead and post it and show your evidence I’m wrong.

        1. ggpa says:

          As always – you are dead wrong. Good luck.

          Also … was your engineering website a “green car website”???? LOL … that is a line you pulled on me.

          Please try to keep you delusions in check, I am referring to “and had to rewrite it because people in the comments section proved him wrong.” …

          1. Nix says:

            Prove it. Provide an actual scientific source that discredits the engineering website I provided.

  19. ggpa says:

    Nix

    LOL. Joke is on you. I gave you an impossible task.

    I have been stringing you along for the last few days.

    You have been running around in vain trying to find a web site proving “1 gallon of gas is equivalent to 33kWh of electrical energy”. Well, it just so happens that the proof cannot exist because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

    So you wasted hours and made dozens of posts here trying to disprove a law of nature.

    Next, I’d like to sell you a bridge!!! Please pay in Bitcoin!

    1. Nix says:

      And yet again, no actual gas is made into electricity, nor is any electricity made into gas. It is a measure of equivalency.

      Here is proof right here:

      “33.70 kWh has 100% of the energy of one gallon of gasoline.”

      http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

      All of the laws of thermodynamics are obeyed. The losses of taking electricity and making an EV move are all captured in the EPA test procedures.

      All the losses of taking gas and making an ICE move are all captured in the EPA test procedure too.

      All laws of thermodynamics are safe.

      Sadly, here you are yet again with nothing to refute the math and the vast number of scientific and educational websites I’ve provided.

      If you want to prove that a single drop of fuel is ever converted to electricity, or vice-versa in any part of the process, post evidence to prove it.

      All your bridges are belong to us.

      1. Nix says:

        Also from that chart, 1 KG of H2 has 100% of the energy in a gallon of gas. Can you convert H2 into a gallon of gas at no loss? Heck no. Again, nobody is actually physically converting anything when calculating energy equivalence.

        1. Nix says:

          If you think anything on this table is wrong, provide a source proving it wrong, and post it.

  20. Vincent Precht says:

    Hi. Newb here. Am happy to find this blog. My volt in cold-for-Los-Angeles El Nino conditions seems to have lost 10 miles of range.

  21. voltastic says:

    gee all you folks…here’s a website of REAL VOLT OWNERS and their usage history…
    it’s pretty amazing..this is my next car!

    http://www.voltstats.net/
    http://www.voltstats.net/
    http://www.voltstats.net/
    http://www.voltstats.net/
    http://www.voltstats.net/